W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:47:07 -0500
Cc: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D5399930-8180-415F-A2A1-17406250F08E@gmail.com>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

On Nov 21, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Boris Motik wrote:

> Hello,
> I don't want to get into an argument here whether this is really  
> needed or not; however, I wanted to point out that I spoke to quite
> a few people asking for the annotation of axioms.

I concur that this is a hard requirement for OWL 1.1. It has come up  
over and over again at OWLED.

> There is yet another solution: we might have axiom annotations in  
> the structural specification, but then disallow (or simply delete
> them) when the ontology is exported into OWL RDF.

 From my point of view, if some feature can't render in RDF, then they  
might as well not be defined at all. Having a complete RDF rendering  
of the full language would seem to me to also be a hard requirement.


> 	Boris
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org 
>> ] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
>> Sent: 21 November 2007 11:37
>> To: Boris Motik
>> Cc: 'OWL Working Group WG'
>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification  
>> in mapping rules is unwise
>> Boris Motik wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I actually really dislike reification myself; unfortunately, I  
>>> don't see how to get around these
>> issues in certain cases. The
>>> problem is that sometimes you need more than binary associations  
>>> between objects.
>>> For example, consider the problem of annotating a SubClassOf  
>>> axiom. In RDF, you write <x
>> rdfs:subClassof y>. But you've just used
>>> both x and y; there is no place for an annotation.
>>> The only solution I see is not to use reification, but to  
>>> introduce yet separate vocabulary and
>> represent ternary relations more
>>> explicitly. I am really open to any suggestions on this point,  
>>> because I do see the point that
>> reification is ugly.
>>> Boris
>> A different approach would be to decide that we cannot address the  
>> use
>> cases for annotations of axioms yet, and to postpone related  
>> issues, and
>> make do with the OWL 1.0 solution.
>> Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 18:47:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC